Anyway, I've said my piece and have to get back to work. Just hoping to ground the argument in something more substantial than just a mess of different concpets flying around with little or no basis in the actual composition of the Hall of Fame.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/10/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):Halladay would be a below average hall of famer. That lowers the standard.

That's a ludicrous argument too. So now no one from the modern era can get in unless they're better than the average Hall of Famer? The the only people from our era will be inner-circle Hall of Famers. The the Hall of Fame becomes "Great players from all eras except the modern one, who can only be super-great players." That's a different standard.

I understand not wanting to elect anyone down among the bottom fourth of the current membership. I'm not advocating Dave Stieb or Bret Saberhagen. But Halladay, a guy who ranks with Marichal, Hubbell, and Feller, is certainly not destroying the Hall of Fame's standards.

""So now no one from the modern era can get in unless they're better than the average Hall of Famer?"

Posted by bad_luck on 12/10/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):Halladay would be a below average hall of famer. That lowers the standard.

That's a ludicrous argument too. So now no one from the modern era can get in unless they're better than the average Hall of Famer? The the only people from our era will be inner-circle Hall of Famers. The the Hall of Fame becomes "Great players from all eras except the modern one, who can only be super-great players." That's a different standard.

I understand not wanting to elect anyone down among the bottom fourth of the current membership. I'm not advocating Dave Stieb or Bret Saberhagen. But Halladay, a guy who ranks with Marichal, Hubbell, and Feller, is certainly not destroying the Hall of Fame's standards.

How is that ludicrous? I certainly wouldn't consider Glavine/Mussina/Schilling "inner-circle Hall of Famers." But all three are better than the average hall of famer. Halladay isn't.

Yeah, it's a high standard. Yeah, there are plenty of guys in the hall who shouldn't be. Oh well.

Posted by chrisekeedei on 12/10/2013 2:30:00 PM (view original):Anyway, I've said my piece and have to get back to work. Just hoping to ground the argument in something more substantial than just a mess of different concpets flying around with little or no basis in the actual composition of the Hall of Fame.

IMO, by allowing Halladay in, you're lowering the standard. Since you don't feel like reading to understand my argument, I'll repeat it. If you don't have the typical HOF length career (he clearly doesn't) to put up the counting stats (wins, WAR, Ks, etc) then you better have a dominant peak. Relative to his peers, IMO, it's not dominant. Dominant is Pedro. Pedro should get in, despite not having a large amount of innings.

And for what it's worth, Jaffe is torn on Halladay. He also wants the standard raised.

I'm from Toronto, I'm a Blue Jays fan, I do believe Roy Halladay was the most dominant pitcher of his "era", I consider myself fairly intelligent and capable of unbiased consideration of all baseball players/teams regardless of location ... all that being said I still voted that Doc does NOT merit HOF induction. Although he was the most dominant pitcher of his "era" that "era" wasn't long enough to be among the "Best of All Time" which is what the HOF should be.

IMO, by allowing Halladay in, you're lowering the standard. Since you don't feel like reading to understand my argument, I'll repeat it. If you don't have the typical HOF length career (he clearly doesn't) to put up the counting stats (wins, WAR, Ks, etc) then you better have a dominant peak. Relative to his peers, IMO, it's not dominant. Dominant is Pedro. Pedro should get in, despite not having a large amount of innings.

And for what it's worth, Jaffe is torn on Halladay. He also wants the standard raised.

Why you're bringing up Red Faber I have no idea. He is well below Halladay in the Jaffe charts. And in general, you can't build a Hall of Fame case by comparing just one guy to another. That's incredibly reductive. You can make a one-to-one comparison say anything you want. I could say that Bret Saberhagen should be in because he's better than Chief Bender. I could say Jim Palmer shouldn't be in because he has lower JAWS numbers than some 1800s guy named Charlie Buffinton who isn't in the Hall. One person is never the standard -- the standards are the standard.

Martinez was perhaps the most dominant during those years than anyone has ever been in history. That's an impossible standard, one that will leave you with maybe 20 pitchers in the Hall.

I disagree with Jaffe, for reasons I've already mentioned -- insisting every Hall of Famer be above the Hall of Fame average is a ridiculously high standard for current players. That said, I very much like the tool he created.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/10/2013 2:47:00 PM (view original):Is there a problem with only 20 pitchers in the HOF?

Yes, because it's not the Hall of Fame, as it exists right now. If you have a way to cut out 3/4 of the membership of the Hall, then I'm with you. Otherwise, we have to deal with the Hall as it is. OK, now I'm really going!

IMO, by allowing Halladay in, you're lowering the standard. Since you don't feel like reading to understand my argument, I'll repeat it. If you don't have the typical HOF length career (he clearly doesn't) to put up the counting stats (wins, WAR, Ks, etc) then you better have a dominant peak. Relative to his peers, IMO, it's not dominant. Dominant is Pedro. Pedro should get in, despite not having a large amount of innings.

And for what it's worth, Jaffe is torn on Halladay. He also wants the standard raised.

Why you're bringing up Red Faber I have no idea. He is well below Halladay in the Jaffe charts. And in general, you can't build a Hall of Fame case by comparing just one guy to another. That's incredibly reductive. You can make a one-to-one comparison say anything you want. I could say that Bret Saberhagen should be in because he's better than Chief Bender. I could say Jim Palmer shouldn't be in because he has lower JAWS numbers than some 1800s guy named Charlie Buffinton who isn't in the Hall. One person is never the standard -- the standards are the standard.

Martinez was perhaps the most dominant during those years than anyone has ever been in history. That's an impossible standard, one that will leave you with maybe 20 pitchers in the Hall.

I disagree with Jaffe, for reasons I've already mentioned -- insisting every Hall of Famer be above the Hall of Fame average is a ridiculously high standard for current players. That said, I very much like the tool he created.

Posted by chrisekeedei on 12/10/2013 1:55:00 PM (view original):You are all just making up your own standards for what constitutes a Hall of Famer. You're citing a certain number of innings, a certain number of wins, etc. with no evidence that your arbitrarily selected numbers or concepts have anything to do with what actually constitutes a Hall of Fame pitcher, which has already been established by the dozens already in.

This page does compare pitchers to the standards already set by existing Hall of Famers, and Halladay does well. He's surrounded by Juan Marichal, Bob Feller, Carl Hubbell, and Hal Newhouser -- not exactly the dregs of the Hall. I'm not saying this closes the case, but at least it's grounded in something concrete rather than whatever numbers sound good to you personally: